Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 8, 2014 3:00am-3:31am PDT

3:00 am
when we started this process we were focused on the negotiations and the owned property so a phase one project could start this we should of engaged the prnz when it was being drafted it was currently adapted that the rezoning himself the zoning of that areas changes. the mail notification of the process went out to the property owners and occupant within one hundred and 50 foot road us but we didn't realize at the time pacific railroad didn't have an address and that's what we rely on for notifications. the joint poetry board authority got all our nos from the community meetings so for the
3:01 am
time being the zone in m-1 and if there's changes to that will trail other conversations with the property owner. other additional changes to that planning code and to the map ordinance are to there's a post application hearing and that's also intended to be a required meeting not an openal one and from the last the may 8th hearing we heard community testimony about getting more clarity about what the roll is for continued participation and the vertical development since there was a previous cac development the role of the cac was to gadget not only in the base applications but in the vertical design and review so there's a strong desire by the
3:02 am
community to attend we concluded things in the ordinance we also think it's good we suggest adding a post application meetings for the vertical design. and this application meeting will happen within the thirty days public review period. and it will happen in visitacion valley and that could be held by the project sponsor when the meeting took place and it will be similar to what's required in the hearing the department. similar to the zoning change in the planning code and the map ordinance we have to make
3:03 am
parallel changes to the other documents they reference each other so we propose to maintain the existing zoning and the uses that were shown the existing deeds on the two parcels i've mentioned include the possibility of housing with the conditional use and we need to put that back into the revised cac and add the language that stl will be refined with the other property owners. oh, i'm sorry, i missed another point there was a minor issue that was adding the signage there's a section in the signage
3:04 am
that talks about placing signs that are compatible with the architecture we've made a modification those signs the number and size should be minute missed that's a minor change. so open space to fix the issue on the two parcels. to make sure the possibility for housing or whatever to allow in the counter zoning is understand and the design of the parcels on the street maybe as their planned and development to make sure all of them meet the cities accessibility and accident ada policies. so emily went through the
3:05 am
changes to the respect changes to the agreement i'm not sure if david with the community of transportation authority is here yet. i'm going to turn it over to my colleague to talk about the projects in this part of town >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioners i'm david i'm the deputy director for particular reason of the san francisco transportation authority i think a useful place to start with the bio county transportation study we developed alongside other partners clidz the department of planning thanks to mark
3:06 am
schneider. do we have slides so part of the study essential focused on a fraction violation for the bio county vision it's the land use transportation process on both sides of the county like that. from this fraction two things resulted one was a priority list i'll show you in a few minutes but the priority project line items lists what's the needs generate by the land use developments and the second was a cost sharing fraction where the public and private sectors can reference and identify financing financing a lot of the investments needed in the area. this study was adapted by our board in mayor 2013 next slide,
3:07 am
please. oh, thanks. so a lot of the rational for those projects is driven as i said before, the land use happening in the area one of the large lands uses we're looking at if you look at the projects that were included in the bio county transportation study i'd like to start off with project a shown on the slide which basically connects or provides an east, west connection between the land use in hunters point shipyard and candle stick point to balboa park so it provides an east west transit connection is basically connects the bart in the design phase and basically east of the 101 and connects the
3:08 am
masters project happening west of san and the other area. you have this gap to the east west connection to u.s. 101 this is the geneva the brt project that provides sdrathd rules of evidence and improves the traffic times on this east west connection are that with that project the second component is happening between bayshore billboard that references the geneva extension that is basically project c on the map and there are several different alignment options from bayshore
3:09 am
boulevard to u.s. 101 that alignment is driven or a function of the brisbane development so depending on that outcome whether the alignment is the extension and how had worked. the third project that ties into this the bayshore caltrain station the vice president of the land use is looking at the relocation study with our participation. to consider northern and southern alternatives for the bayshore alignment that is driven by the land use projects in the area and how we want to connect them to the caltrain station. the third project that is highlighted is the t extension
3:10 am
this is really not moving forwa forward little reasons why this loop or extension will happen goodwin on the new ridership in the developments on the area since that's on hold the rational for the additional track will be pending what happens in the developments in the area. so the counter status is basically for the geneva brt project i've mentioned the transportation authority leading the feasibility study we're conducting e conducting it's expected to be completed early 2015 pr we have the bayshore location study we recently released a request for proposals
3:11 am
the geneva extension that depended on a lot of the developments in the region and u.s. 101 and candle stick reconfiguration which also has a a rational by the developments but also a pdr by caltrain. finally i'll close of we continue to monitor the land vementsz in the area as it relates to how this bio county vision continues to hold together the projects with the developments that's happening roadway. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. we may have questions later. >> thank you. >> thank you david in addition to david we have representatives from mayor's office of housing
3:12 am
and the rec and park department as well as the mta in you have questions about the agencies rolls in the developments agreement they're here for questions. in terms of the steps we've outlined everything we've proposed should be changed in addition to what we outlined at the may eight hearing. the virile review they've byte put so it out on may 29th and the addendums will not change you may give or the need for mitigation measures. even though the density in the number of units increased in the first project the square footage decreased by a little bit more than half. sequa findings will be part of
3:13 am
today's finding. in terms of next steps we're here for you to take steps in moving forward. emily mentioned the last presentation because it's a da project it required he r requires us to go to other commissions because that other city agencies such as rec and park department and the community transportation authority heard they're making to the project. this was - this will put ass us at the oversight committee we'll be at the board of supervisors in july and if that process goes well, the mayor can sign the ordinances and the development amendments can be effective in august so the project can break ground in 2015 attorney what are
3:14 am
the required actions you'll be approving the development agreement by recommending approval with the modifications that emily highlighted not board of supervisors of the agreement and adopting a resolution also approving all the general plans and zoning map amendments as well as the implementation documents of the open space street plan and recommending to the board the modification i just went over. if there are questions for planning or other staff that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. well take public comment first and open up for questions. >> i have a number of speaker cards please line up on the screen side of the room (calling names)
3:15 am
first speaker what come to the podium. >> joseph scott here with the labors 2 61 speaking on number 12 and i'm sorry, i will recall i up when that project comes up. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm ann seaman a visitacion valley resident and a founder the visitacion valley greenway project. i'm here to iceberg our support for the schlage lock and the proposed changes it's a fire bed of proposals for home depot which some of us opposed and please support continued
3:16 am
community involvements in the progress we helped to craft the plan and want assurance that this development which is the gateway to san francisco from the south will be a model of the best urban planning practices that include excellent design to enable protecting and middle-income families to remain in san francisco >> hi i'm julian i remain a small business during some of the conductions we've had damage and suffered from dust i'd like to have it clarified if possible and also parking in the area if
3:17 am
the construction vehicles are parking open the public streets and reich parking it cases a problem there was not enough parking open the streets and i'd like to have this addressed if possible. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon my name is a russel moreen i've been a resident that's been involved in the process from the beginning depending on where you want to start the clock 15 years ago. i believe t i believe the community supports this project there's been redevelopment in the scene and the whole economic downturn a lot of issues that got us to the point but i believe that claudia
3:18 am
the planner pointed out we have hopefully, a deadline to get this moving forward and not going away there's a lot of interest just elevating things we don't have the same structure but we are interested in being involved as we moved so hopefully, we'll get approval and one last thing schlage lock was a brand in san francisco le levy straus is a brand so don't forget that. thank you
3:19 am
>> (calling names). >> commissioner president wu and planning commissioners i'm rob the director of real estate for union pacific railroad in the bay area. as you saw if the presentation by your staff we have property that's involved in proposed schlage lock for redevelopments 1 point 1 thousand acres between the schlage lock facility and i have a map i hopefully can display here >> yes. >> our property is in the middle so the outline of the red crossing the schlage lock site to the left and the joint powers right away to the left you should have received a
3:20 am
letter dated may 30th we've expressed significant concerns about the property which had been done without our knowledge and perhaps in the careerss records you don't have the address but there had been to contact with the railroad the members of the redevelopment agency whole thing this was in place so, anyway besides that your planning staff subsequent to that letter has been very cooperative and responsive we appreciate their event in contacting us and revisions were made as they outlined in their staff report we appreciate that. one thing i noted in the development agreement that all the residential units i think that are 16 hundred and 79 are
3:21 am
allocated to the visitation development folks. i'm going to put up another perspective that was put up by your staff. i've outlined the property line in orange sort of give us an idea of the property boundary there's proposed residential development that was outlined in the design development in 2009. so it appears that the 16 hundred and 79 residential unit that allocated to visitation demonstrate we're going he hoping to talk about that with the plaintiff to see possible reallocation in the overall development to our property. and also obviously, we consider uses as appropriate in the d one
3:22 am
industrial district as well as including the center railroad uses. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon commemoration i'm lucky i'm a want and business of the neighborhood and visitations directly on bayshore boulevard i'll supporting this project hopefully, we'll get it done as quickly as possible but you have one concern due to the fact i was living in the neighborhood and didn't realize what the thirty years of traffic we have bay area as our main solution going up southbound towards brisbane into 101 so
3:23 am
bayshore is our main connection sure besides that you can go through a tunnel to get into the 101 but earlier i saw we got into the brt project extending or connecting geneva s to 101 i think that's the main reason i'm asking commissioners and everyone to support the project but at the same time there's an outlet from jen have had to ghetto through the offer pass or underpass through caltrain i'm aware of caltrain railroad it's intercepting in fact, inviting bayshore so, however, the
3:24 am
planning can connect that or don't let one reason or other to eliminate the connection because imagine that now we only have traffic every morning and afternoon piling up on bayshore from visitation to the on top of the hill where the 101 northbound entry imagine if we increase the traffic to 16 hundred and 789 commercial activity everybody will be standing still on top of that what about pedestrian safety a pedestrian was run over a couple of months ago we increasing traffic if we don't deal with that that's a public safety
3:25 am
issue. so i'm asking yes. i support the project but please don't let one reason or other to address additional visitation to the northbound or southbound >> thank you. >> my name is christian elliott i have concerned to address about the project. one is structurally. i've been visitacion valley resident for 5 years and the last time the building i'm currently in construction was do you think it was directly adjacent i open up my windows and that's why the construction b will be. the last time there was demolition that was significant damage to the property i live in causing leaks and dust from the
3:26 am
inside of the building that i live in itself. from the vibrations of the equipment issues such as traffic that's been and the by others another person myself and issues of environmental dust into my living space and my quality of life will be seriously commodity from dust and such and that's it. thank you very much >> thank you. >> i live in 445 visitation avenue i have a wife she's sick. she's been to hospital many times we're trying to find a cure my kind of noise gives her a really busing sound we have main concern and i have 6 years
3:27 am
and 18 months old the last time i did this they made damage to my property we going back and forth and whatever damage they do they repay and now they refuse and my grandson is they come and detach my roof and my building is made out of stucco in the 30s whenever any kind of damage it is done to my
3:28 am
property. >> thank you. >> (calling names) jordan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. commissioner president wu. i'm jordan i'm an attorney representing a client who owns property anothers 2505 to 9 bayshore boulevard and 445 to 44 7s visitation avenue. i understand this is a very well liked project by everyone it's going to improve the city and good for visitation avenue, however, the demolition project a lot of damage was done to the building it is a costing litigation and going forward there are less expensive means and channels for grievances to
3:29 am
have those things compensated for the property that the gentleman was talking about is literally surrounded by on 3 sides from a demolition and the concerns there was some proper venue to address those problems rather than the the incredible expensive litigation >> is there any further public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners tim collin on behalf of the housing coalition this is a long series of appearances i've made to support in project going back. we strongly support this moving forward. one of the things that stood identity in our reviews of the project is the axiliary participation of the community
3:30 am
in designing the project and giving input it's been a tremendous community process we applaud it's long overdue there's time constraint and hope you won't delay a minute in approving it >> thank you. >> thank you for taking my comment and what he said i agree. i'm chris i'm in support and my involvement began as a resident in 18999. as an interested neighbor i started attending the visitacion valley planning meetings that drove the fight against the home depot project and it's been a tireless advocate. i served on the advisory committee under